The outcome of the first reported battle since the end of major combat operations in Iraq suggests victory may be closer than most Americans dare to hope.

Iraqis wearing the black garb of the Fedayeen Saddam ambushed two convoys carrying cash to banks in Samarra, a small town in the Sunni Triangle about 60 miles northwest of Baghdad. The attacks were well planned and coordinated. The attackers were brave. The attackers died like flies.

This article is based on another from Stratfor. I used to subscribe to Stratfor a few years ago, but stopped after I felt they were becoming more hit and miss. I'm still concerned about the Syrians and Iranians coming over the border but I hope this article reads correctly.

The issue is political, and the issue is in the U.S. That's how the NV prevailed in the mid-1972s, and that is how the Saddamites are trying to win now.

But in the 1970s the U.S. had a McGovernite Democratic majority in Congress--and much greater public naivete' about the nature of journalism. Back then Walter Cronkite was seriously considered the most trusted man in America. Now there are Republican majorities in Congress--and Walter Cronkite is just an acknowledged leftie commentator.

The Republican party is, ironically, now centered in the formerly solid Democrat South--which is acquiring congressional seats and electoral votes at the expense of the Democrats' base in the Northeast. And now we have FR, talk radio and the Fox News Channel to balance our political discourse.

Whether or not the Saddamites understand that, they are betting on filling an inside straight. And even though they hope to cause political problems for Bush by inflicting otherwise meaningless casualties in Iraq, the political effect of any likely success might not help their allies in America. The latter could so easily overplay their hand . . .

8
posted on 12/07/2003 2:57:36 PM PST
by conservatism_IS_compassion
(The everyday blessings of God are great--they just don't make "good copy.")

Actually, this is a fairly significant article. The Post-Gazette is Pittsburgh's equivalent of the Washington Post so when they print an article with even a mildly pro-American connotation it usually means (a)we are really winning and they don't want to look like total fools cheerleading for the enemy or (b)a token article to point to as a innoculation against charges of bias.

If more articles like this appear, (a) may well be the case. However, even if their reason for printing is (b), it does mean that someone in management has told them more balance (even token balance) is needed.

because seeking a standup fight with the U.S. military is a stupid thing to do, Stratfor, a private intelligence service, thinks the attacks more likely were motivated by desperation.

Haven't read the original Stratfor report, but this conclusion is nonsense. "Stupid" is a relative term when dealing with Islamakazis. It may be "stupid" from a western military perspective, but they are intelligently following the Islamakazi system. Success is killing the enemy even if it means dying in battle. If hopelessly outgunned they'll surrender, but only to fight another day. It's The Islamakzi WayTM

If this attack was by mujhadeen/jihadi irregulars, they are as motivated by the presence of American targets as anything else. The presence of cash, reporters, local supporters, and some larger strategic issues, like influencing American media reports (give me a break) would just be icing on the cake. Most of them believe that firing from a crouched or prone position is unmanly. And I've seen multiple commentaries that 90%+ of the munitions they fire in a firefight aren't even aimed -- it's the primitive equivalent of carpet bombing.

The mistake they made here was their assumption that a large number of their ilk in an ambush guaranteed them some Islamakazi success (killing Americans). If they had, then the op would have been a "success". They didn't so it was a failure. They'll rethink their approach. Because firefights aren't "successful", they'll continue with standoff attacks or they'll try entrapment (e.g., US convoys in narrow streets with landmines).

"The larger the guerrilla formation involved, the higher the intensity of fighting, and the longer the engagement, the better for the United States," Stratfor said. "If the guerrillas believe they must up the ante now, the guerrillas are in trouble."

And as Hillary and Howard Dean throw their (considerable) weight behind the terrorists, all the bad guys go down.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.